9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited evidenced by the debit note constitutes proof of the appellant having incurred in service tax liability in respect of the lease of immovable property from M/s HCL Technologies Limited as a sub-lessee. The burden therefore shifts to the Revenue to establish that the debit note recorded by M/s HCL Technologies Limited is a fraudulent instrument not reflecting the true transaction between the parties. This principle of law, that a suspicion however grave cannot be a foundation for a logical conclusion of fact, is well settled. Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010, vide paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.3 clearly enjoins that there is no requirement of a precise or a one-to-one correlation between an input service leading to an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges relating to professional services concerning income tax assessment, of ₹ 10,300/-, (subject to verification of the relevant documents) but rejecting claim of refund of credit of service tax of ₹ 21,42,757/-, paid by the appellant on immovable property taken on rent from its holding company M/s HCL Technologies Limited. A appeal was preferred against the adjudication order dated 30.04.2013 which rejected the claim for refund of service tax liability incurred in respect of renting of immovable properties; and two other elements, which were however allowed by the appellate Commissioner. 2. On 12.12.2012, appellant filed a refund claim, inter alia for refund of ₹ 21,42,757/- being the service tax component remitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 to June 2010 and service tax and the rent was remitted qua a debit note entry (on 29.02.2012), the transaction between M/s HCL Technologies Limited and the appellant cannot be said to be an arm's length transaction since the lessor accepted payment of rent after two to three years. Therefore, the appellate Commissioner reasoned, debit notes are inadmissible and the claim should be supported by the other documents. The appellate Commissioner proceeded to observe that since the appellant failed to furnish a C.A. certificate to support the payments and since this was an extraordinary case and much delay had occurred in payment of rent, submission of ST-3 returns of the service provider are not sufficient. 5. The second reason add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nna Salai, Chennai and M/s HCL Technologies Limited as the lessee , an expression deemed to include its successor and assigns. By a debit note in 2012 M/s HCL Technologies Limited entered a debit on the appellant for the rent for the period July 2008 to June 2009 in respect of Arihant building in Sterling Tower. 8. On 12.12.2011 M/s HCL Technologies Limited entered into a formal lease agreement to sub-lease the premises to the appellant for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015. A covenant in this lease deed specifically mentions that the lease deed dated 23.02.2007 under which M/s HCL Technologies Limited had obtained lease of the self-same premises is for the purpose of its normal and usual business under any of its subsidiary company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an unusual occurence, is not sufficient to displace the veracity of the debit note. This principle of law, that a suspicion however grave cannot be a foundation for a logical conclusion of fact, is well settled. 9. In the Form ST-2, the name of the premises is recorded as M/s HCL Comnet Systems Services Limited, STP Unit and in the column pertaining to Road/ Street/ Lane it is recorded as Sterling Technopolis, Chennai. M/s HCL Comnet Systems Services Limited is the name of the appellant and therefore it could not have been the name of the premises, clearly a typographical error. While this is so, an analyses of the debit note, the lease deed between the owner of the premises and M/s HCL Technologies Limited, dated 23.02.2007 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) uniformally expound the same principle, of the absence of a need for a one to one correlation between an input or output service. In the absence of any finding recorded by the authorities below that the renting of immovable property was not a service having any nexus whatsoever with the output service provided by the appellant, on the basis of any factual analyses, then is no justification for rejecting refund. 11. In the light of the fact that the premises in issue was the premises from which the appellant was operating is established by the debit note, by the lease deed of M/s HCL Technologies Limited and the sub-lease deed of the appellant, the preponderance of probabilities legitimises the conclusion that renting of immovable prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
